nity of supporting any motion he might bring forward; and he should be sorry if this right should be denied. In this instance it had been granted; and the mover of the resolutions had supported them with a degree of ability that did him honor. At the same time, how undoubted soever might be the truth of these remarks, a proposition offered may be of such a nature as to render any expression of opinion by the House improper. It may be improper in point of time, matter, or consequences; and, under such circumstances, a decision may be properly avoided by a motion sim- | ilar to that before the Committee. This, then, is the simple question, whether it is expedient to decide it at this time on the abstract propositions contained in these resolutions. Those who think it is, will vote against the Committee's rising, while those who hold a different opinion will vote differently. Mr. S. concluded by observing, that he considered the propositions, generally considered, as true; but, he was of opinion that it was improper at the present time to express any opinion respecting them. He should vote, therefore, for the rising of the Committee.

Mr. LUCAS declared himself hostile to any compromise with the claimants.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he was sorry to be so troublesome; but when he found he entertained different sentiments from a gentleman whom he highly respected, it became incumbent on him to sustain, as well as he could, his own opinions. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has stated a proposition, which may be true in the abstract; and yet it may not follow that, in this instance, it is not advisable for the Legislative body to express an opinion.

No one would be hardy enough to deny the abstract position laid down by the gentleman, and yet the inference deduced from it may be totally unsustainable. His reasoning amounts to this: Because it is not proper for a Legislative body to express an opinion on an abstract proposition having no connexion with the business before them, if a member should bring forward a proposition that an acid and an alkali united produce a neutral salt, the Committee could, notwithstanding its truth, throw it out. But this is not the nature of the propositions before us? Have they no bearing on the subject under consideration? Because we refuse to express an opinion on abstract motions having no relation to business before us, shall we refuse to express an opinion on subjects that have? Certainly not. Mr. R. said he was rather of the opinion that if these propositions had so little bearing as some gentlemen represented, they would not have received so strenuous an opposition. Had he brought forward a proposition that Lake Erie was the boundary between Canada and the United States, or that a whole was equal to its parts, the Committee would have sneered at its folly or stupidity, and have given it a silent decision. So, if these propositions had been considered trifling or harmless, they would have been easily passed over. But, they are not so considered. They are not, said Mr. R., mere abstract truths; but they probe to the very vitals the question before you; they

H. OF R.

contain facts which give the death-blow to the claims of 1795. Are specific proofs of corruption abstract propositions? Facts are not abstract propositions. If gentlemen are disposed to doubt them, let them appoint a committee to examine into their truth. Let them not attempt to get under, over, or around the question; but let them meet it. Mr. R. said he was sorry to be deserted by any of his friends, or to desert those with whom it was his honor, on most occasions, to act. Nor was there a gentleman on the floor with whom he differed with a livelier regret than the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) not only from a respect for his political character, which he had known long before he knew him, but because he had heretofore acted with him hand in hand.

Mr. SMILIE observed that his remarks had been applied to the proposition only, and not to the bill.

Mr. RODNEY said he was willing, after the able discussion of his friend from Virginia, with whom it was his pride and pleasure to act, to decline saying anything on the subject. He only wished to have a vote on the resolutions, and to have an opportunity in the House of recording it.

Mr. ELMER could not conceive that gentlemen could reasonably desire any more than a vote on the result of the abstract principles and facts, which had been already decided on. The facts may be true, and the principles likewise, in some senses, but not in others. What can gentlemen require more than the result of facts and principles; and why go into an investigation of facts not necessary to act upon? All that is necessary is so far to decide facts and principles as they are connected with the bill.

The question was then taken on the rising of the Committee, and carried-ayes 57, noes 48.

The Committee accordingly rose and reported in part their agreement to the bill, with a request to have leave to sit again.

An adjournment was moved and lost—ayes 37, noes 57.

On the question of leave being given to the Committee to sit again, Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he presumed the question about to be put was dictated rather by a compliance with form than substance. Is it possible, after the House has sent the resolutions to the Committee and the Committee have refused to act upon them, that they will, by a kind of legerdemain, give them leave to sit again, thus keeping the resolutions exchanged and preventing the sense of the House from being taken on them? I do not believe, said Mr. R., that the House will consent to countenance such a procedure. If this, however, shall be the course pursued, I shall bow on this, as on all other occasions, to the will of a majority; but my submission will flow not from the heart but from necessity. But I cannot bring myself to believe, that after the Committee have refused to act on the resolutions, by declining to do anything more than report the bill, that the House will keep the resolutions in a state of abeyance till they shall be dismissed by an adjournment.

been the practice, I am unwilling to express the abhorrence I feel of this act, because such an expression of opinion goes to involve others in guilt, in cases where no such right of crimination constitutionally belongs to Congress.

The course we are now pursuing is the true course, that which is founded in justice and in sound policy. It is to cover the transaction without approving it; to pass the whole of its scenes over in silence. Whereas we cannot consider the resolutions without going to the marrow of this foul wound, which every dictate of policy and wisdom prompts us to conceal. I consider this course as going forever to close this offensive wound; to bury it in eternal oblivion. With this view I made the motion. It is immaterial to me whether the Committee be refused leave to sit again, or be discharged from a consideration of the resolutions. So long as the resolutions live, I will with zeal oppose their consideration, without saying that I will bring the House to a vote. A gentleman may propose what he pleases, but it is for the House to dispose of it. I will oppose their consideration, because I see in them nothing of public utility; because they are a source of personal irritation; and because wisdom dictates that the whole transaction to which they relate should be thrown into oblivion.

Mr. DAWSON concisely advocated the consideration of the resolutions; he thought it but fair that an opportunity should be given to their friends to support them.

Mr. SMILIE said he had avoided, through the whole of the discussion, considering the merits of the resolutions. He would state, at this time, one reason why he was unwilling to vote upon them. Congress should be extremely careful, when they were establishing their own rights, not to violate the rights of others. These resolutions declare the act of Georgia under which the claims in question are preferred, a nullity. I ask, what will be the effect of this declaration on the claims when they are brought before a court of justice? Can they have the same chance of justice after this solemn decision of the House of Representatives of the Union? It is acknowledged to be wrong to bias a jury; and it is well known that printers are punished for publications during a pending suit. Can anything they may publish have such an effect as the decision of the National Legislature? This is the reason, said Mr. S., why I am reluctant to express any opinion on these resolu

tions.

Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH inquired whether, if leave were refused to the Committee of the Whole to sit again, the resolutions would not therefore be considered as before the House?

The SPEAKER said they would.

On granting leave, the yeas and nays were taken, and were-yeas 3, nays 101, as follows: YEAS-Isaac Anderson, Frederick Conrad, and Beriah Palmer.

NAYS-Willis Alston, jr., John Archer, S. Baldwin, David Bard, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, P. Bishop, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, Levi Casey, Sth CoN.-36

H. OF R.

William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett, Thomas Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Manasseh Cutler, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dawson, William Dickson, Thomas Dwight, John B. Earle, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, William Findley, John Fowler, James Gillespie, Peterlord Griswold, Roger Griswold, Samuel Hammond, son Goodwyn, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Griffin, GayJohn A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Seth Hastings, William Hoge, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, jun., Henry W. Livingston, John B. C. Lucas, Matthew Lyon, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Nahum Mitchell, Samuel L. Mitchill, Andrew Moore, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, junior, Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, Thos. Plater, Samuel D. Purviance, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Cæsar A. Rodney, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Tompson J. Skinner, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Cotton Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, James Stephenson, John Stewart, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, Samuel ThatchJohn Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Killian K. Van Rensseer, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Marmaduke Williams, laer, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Peleg Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

the debate took, and its irrelevancy to the main [This question, from the unexpected turn which points under discussion, viz: the expediency of considering Mr. RANDOLPH's resolutions, and the justice or policy of compromising claims under the act of Georgia, of 1795, decided nothing: particularly as it was previously declared by the Chair that, in case leave was refused to the Committee to sit again, the resolutions would thereupon be in possession of the House.]

Mr. J. RANDOLPH immediately moved that the House should take up the resolutions for consideration, and called for the yeas and nays on the

motion.

A member inquired, whether it was not first in order to consider the report of the Committee agreeing to the bill?

The SPEAKER said, Mr. RANDOLPH's motion, being first made, must be first considered.

An unsuccessful motion having been made to adjourn, the question was taken by yeas and nays, on considering the resolutions, and carried affirmatively—yeas 57, nays 46, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, junior, John Archer, David Bard, George Michael Bedinger, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, Levi Casey, Thomas Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, John Dawson, John B. Earle, William Findley, James GilHammond, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Willespie, Peterson Goodwyn, Thomas Griffin, Samuel liam Hoge, James Holland, Walter Jones, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, junior, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Andrew Moore, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Newton, junior, Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, Samuel D. Purviance, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Cæsar A. Rodney, Thomas Sam

osity would receive ample gratification as to the works of art and productions of nature which exist in those boundless tracts.

There is no need of informing the House that already an expedition, authorized by Congress at the second session of the seventh Congress, has been actually undertaken, and is going on, under the President's direction, up the Missouri. The two enterprising conductors of this adventure, Captains Lewis and Clark, have been directed to attempt a passage to the western shore of the South Sea; from them, on their return in 1805, a narrative full of instruction may be expected. It is also understood that a survey has been ordered to be made of the Mississippi, from the mouth of the Ohio to the falls of Saint Anthony. Of this a correct map may be expected within a reasonable time. The like also is hoped, in the course of a moderate period, from the latter place to the source of the Mississippi, and thence to the Lake of the Woods.

Men of political research have, in like manner, long known that the course of the Mississippi downwards to the Gulf of Mexico, has been well delineated by Captain Hutchings; and that more recently, by the assiduous observations of Mr. Ellicot, the turnings and windings of that river, southward of its junction with the Ohio, and the territorial line on the 31st degree of north latitude, to the northwestern angle of Florida, have been exhibited in a perspicuous and scientific manner. Along the coast of the ocean too, from Perdido Bay to the Bay of Saint Bernard, navigators have viewed the shores and coast so often that there is little left to explore.

But, although there is so much really known, or in a train of investigation, concerning Louisiana, there are still some parts upon which it would be desirable to possess additional information. The tracts alluded to are those which remain principally in their original obscurity, and strongly attract the eye of the adventurer. Their pathless forests may be advantageously penetrated along the channels of the Arkansas and the Red Rivers, two of those large and long water-courses which intersect them. An expedition of discovery up these prodigious streams and their branches might redound as much to the honor, and more to the interest of our Government, than the voyages by sea round the terraqueous globe have done for the polished nations of Europe who authorized them. Such liberal enterprises will befit the present season of prosperity, and may be expected to succeed best during the reign of peace.

The Red River was visited many years ago, and even settled as high as Natchitoches. This old establishment is laid down in some of the maps, as being only seven leagues distant from the station of Adais, the capital of the province of Tecas, and situated on the river Mexicano. Red River is described as difficult to ascend when the waters are low; but when high a traveller may, by means of them, penetrate where he pleases. More than half a century ago, it was said that along its banks were many inferior lakes and drowned lands, that abounded with alligators and fishes; that its shores were inhabited by plenty of bisons, tigers, wolves, deer, and several other species of untamed beasts; as well as by turkeys, geese, swans, ducks, and other kind of wild fowl; and that all manner of indigenous fruit trees and grape vines sprout up luxuriantly from the soil. To these accounts, which are common to most other parts of the American wilderness when first visited by civilised men, other facts and considerations are now to be added. The nation has been lately told, on respectable

H. OF R.

authority, that the Red River is navigable by boats one thousand miles beyond Natchitoches. It is reported to run through a country abounding in rich prairies, where neat cattle and horses range in innumerable herds, as independent as the natural inhabitants. There is reason to presume the head of this stream lies concealed in the southwestern corner of the newly ceded territory. The limits of Louisiana in that quarter are obscure and undefined. And it is worthy of Legislative consideration, whether the latitude and longitude of the Red River source ought not to be ascertained under the authority of the nation. It may be expected that individuals will venture upon such undertakings for the gratification of their own speculative curiosity, and by discreet management the journeys of such persons will minister to the national wants, and to general instruction, with but a trifling appropriation from the Treasury.

The Arkansas, which has been already traced above one thousand miles, also seems worthy of being explored with more care and to a greater extent than has hitherto been done. A spacious plain and valley incrusted annually (like the soil in some spots about the Persian Gulf) with native salt, in quantity sufficient to impregnate a branch of the Arkansas, and occasionally the river into which it falls, with its briny quality, and to make it a salt river down to the settlement of Ouisarque, for considerably more than six hundred miles of its course, might be mentioned as no ordinary occurrences. The masses of virgin silver and gold that glitter in the veins of the rocks which underlay the Arkansas itself, and mingle with the minerals near certain other of its streams, and offer themselves to the hand of him who

will gather, refine, and convert them to use, are no less ductions might be dwelt upon at considerable length, uncommon and wonderful. These extraordinary proin this report; but, credible as both the relations are, the existence of a salt river, precious mines and ores, the committee forbear to offer anything more than that and of some other remarkable objects, are stated upon solid and credible testimony. Omitting these things, as not necessary to be urged to Congress, the committee consider that the latitude, longitude, and relative situation of the source of the Arkansas, are themselves of sufficient moment to render their attainment very desirable.

ing the streams of the Black river, the White river, the Without writing a sentence on the advantages of tracMexicano, and of other rivers, to their sources, the committee submit the following opinion:

That it will be honorable and useful to make some public provision for further exploring the extent, and ascertaining the boundaries of Louisiana: and,

That a sum not exceeding dollars be appropriated for enabling the President of the United States to river and the Arkansas, or either of them, or elsewhere cause surveys and observations to be made on the Red in Louisiana, as he shall think proper, for these pur

poses.

The report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on Wednesday next.

FRIDAY, March 9.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims, of the twenty-seventh ultimo, to whom was referred the petition of Moses White and Charlotte Hazen, executor and executrix of Moses Hazen, deceased ; and, after some time spent there